Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/S2 Lovely Boy/Archive

Report date April 19 2009, 15:58 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

All creating and editing pages within a Portal:Shōjo manga, a "non-authorized" and inappropriate portal. Editing each others pages. Almost positive this guy has been around before using these Korean user names. Asking for check user to find any sleepers and, hopefully, locate the original parent. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs)


 * This might be of interest as well. As 기름통휘발유, says second account is an old account of S2 Lovely Boy, and claims "I" only use one account...-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * What community ban or sanction is being violated here? I do not see that any of these accounts have ever been blocked. Tiptoety  talk 18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm positive this guy are socks of another sock, I just can't remember his name (it was another korean one). If you can check the history of Portal:Boys Love and Girls Love, that might tell you who it was, since a non-admin can't see who originally created it, but this user asked why it was deleted, calling himself Bondage Boy-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * No evidence of violating WP:SOCK. Behavior wrt to portals might warrant attention, but SPI isn't the right venue. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Using multiple accounts to make a personal portal isn't bad? And a new account making something that complex isn't suspicious? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it indicates that the account isn't that of a new user. But it isn't evidence of violating the socking policy, which is needed for a CU check. I'll leave this unarchived for review by another clerk (preferably Tiptoety). Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 20:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the deleted content of the portal in question and only found that one user had edited it, and that user remains unblocked. I would also like to note that has made only one edit, back in October, and has no edits to the portal or related pages. While it is possible that  is a sock of, I have yet to see conclusive evidence of abusive sockpuppetery. At least, not enough to warrant a block.  Tiptoety  talk 03:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Please leave this for Tiptoety.  Syn  ergy 21:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)